Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Eric, OMNI already has UDP port number but it also needs 1) an IP protocol number,
2) an IEEE Ethernet EtherType and 3) an IPv6 ND option number. These are the same
things SCHC is asking for (minus the IPv6 ND), and to hear Bob describe it sounds like
for the same or very similar reasons. Which makes me wonder whether providing a
full IETF blessing for SCHC now puts AERO/OMNI at a competitive disadvantage? Or,
if the IETF is willing to extend the same codepoint allocation graces to AERO/OMNI
now then that would address the concern.

The OMNI draft has a properly-formed IANA considerations where the necessary
codepoint allocations are requested. Does it need to be broken out into a small
companion draft the way SCHC did it?

Fred

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) <juzuniga=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00


EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.




Fred,

IANA has enough code points for SCHC over IP/Ethernet/UDP and for OMNI (NDP code point if I remember correctly). I.e., this not one or the other. And SCHC early allocation (if any) won't block/prevent any other allocations.

Moreover, per RFC 7120 section 2 point d)
   d.  The Working Group chairs and Area Directors (ADs) judge that
       there is sufficient interest in the community for early (pre-RFC)
       implementation and deployment, or that failure to make an early
       allocation might lead to contention for the code point in the
       field.

I.e., early allocation will be done for adopted documents where there is a clear interest.

Hope this clarifies

Regards,

-éric

From: Int-area <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 9 November 2022 at 16:11
To: "Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)" <juzuniga=[e-mail]<mailto:juzuniga=[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00

I want to understand whether granting these allocations for SCHC would prevent
OMNI from receiving exactly the same three allocation types. If so, then we need
to ask the question of whether the codepoints should go to SCHC or OMNI. In my
view, OMNI should get the codepoints.

Fred

From: Int-area <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 8:07 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Int-area] Next steps for draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00


EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.




Hi IntArea WG,

Today we had an interesting discussion about the future of draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00.
We would like to ask Bob Moskowitz et al. to upload a revised I-D with the text about the EtherType and UDP port numbers.

Once we have that draft published, we will re-confirm our call for adoption, and then we will proceed to coordinate with tsvwg as discussed.

Best,

Juan-Carlos & Wassim
(IntArea chairs)